Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[anglolawyer]

What I meant was in fulfilling the requirement (where he talks about it in his report in narrative form) to show that Amanda and Raffaele intended to commit murder (but not premeditated--spontaneous) and needed to be punished he supports it with what sounds like a motive (to fulfill lust inspired by hash and comics) but that isn't what he's doing. I may well have forgot a qualifier when making the comparison with mens rea as it's not the same hurdle, just what he's doing there is closer to it than what we would think of a motive, in court or out.

What happened to LJ, anyway? I popped in here every once in a while and he was posting, but it doesn't seem like he's posted in a long time. He consulted a lawyer familiar with the Italian system and posted on this subject, using mens rea as a comparison.



Yes, I agree, but the distinction being made here is between premeditation in which they must prove a motive through the Supreme Court and a 'spontaneous' act; in the US it might be more like the difference between murder in the first degree and manslaughter, dunno about the UK. A motive allows for stiffer punishment, for example had the Michaeli Court determined that the evidence of Rudy Guede being a burglar who was close to being evicted and having left his traces on Meredith's purse with Meredith's rent money, cellphones and credit cards having been stolen and Rudy haven gotten to Germany and survived somehow was enough evidence to say that Meredith was killed for her money, (motive) they could have given Rudy a stiffer sentence. Since Mignini stuck with the 'staged break-in' and absolved Rudy of being a burglar (in this instance) there was no chance of that.





That was an interesting conundrum for her! Was Rumsfeld a whistle-blower or did he just 'let it slip?'

LJ is on yet another unauthorised sabbatical.

FWIW we don't have murder one or two and premeditation plays no part at all in the definition of the homicide offences (murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter). All murderers get life and life comes with a 'tariff' ranging from whole life to 'not less than x no. of years' as per the judge's non-binding recommendation. This makes a heck of a difference to how things play out. Jodi Arias would probably be going for manslaughter using our new 'loss of control' defence to murder, for instance.

 

[Dan O.]

@Dan O.

You can be brutal sometimes. Reading around it seems Koko was unsure (or perhaps unclear) whether The Great Olive Fight occurred on 31 Oct or 01 Nov. We can settle it the same way Galati settles which night Toto saw them: we know where they were on Hallowe'en so it must have been the following night. I had better amend the wiki

If you can find better material, please add it to the wiki.

Koko's depositions and testimony (see the wiki) are explicitly uncertain of the night. It is unclear how the news was able to resolve the date though I suspect they had help from an insider familiar with the rest of the evidence. A Nov. 1st olive attack would interfere with the early evening alibi that has been established and is incompatible with the raining which is an integral part of the story.

More likely it's a complete fabrication. Is there an existing link between Koko and Rudy? He seems reluctant to identify the black in the first deposition but later says he saw all of their faces clearly and then goes into Rudy wanting to borrow his car.


Another interesting bit: At the end of the first deposition taken January 19, 2008, there is a bit about not disclosing this information for two months under penalty of law. The date on the news article above was January 24. It appears that the only purpose of that sanction is to give the authorities exclusive rights to release the story.

 

[anglolawyer]

If you can find better material, please add it to the wiki.

Koko's depositions and testimony (see the wiki) are explicitly uncertain of the night. It is unclear how the news was able to resolve the date though I suspect they had help from an insider familiar with the rest of the evidence. A Nov. 1st olive attack would interfere with the early evening alibi that has been established and is incompatible with the raining which is an integral part of the story.

More likely it's a complete fabrication. Is there an existing link between Koko and Rudy? He seems reluctant to identify the black in the first deposition but later says he saw all of their faces clearly and then goes into Rudy wanting to borrow his car.


Another interesting bit: At the end of the first deposition taken January 19, 2008, there is a bit about not disclosing this information for two months under penalty of law. The date on the news article above was January 24. It appears that the only purpose of that sanction is to give the authorities exclusive rights to release the story.

I thought his account included horrible screams coming from the apartment. Wouldn't that put the incident on the 1st? Anyhow, you answered my question. It is a permissible interpretation of his evidence that he was talking about Hallowe'en. I had just assumed, due to not boning up all night on the wiki, that he spied them as they were impersonating garbage after the murder.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Olive thrower

Here is Candace's report on Kokomani. Either he is nuts, or he is crazy like a fox. Note the photo credits at the end.

 

[anglolawyer]

Here is Candace's report on Kokomani. Either he is nuts, or he is crazy like a fox. Note the photo credits at the end.

Thanks halides.

A couple more things from the book. One is she refers to the prosecution theory that Meredith spent the time before her death writing an essay due the next day. I haven't checked the wiki to see if it has a photocopy but I have wondered about the notebook on the bed and whether there was anything written therein that might have supported this idea or not.

The other thing is I can see pretty clearly one reason the book was not published in the UK. It clearly libels (unless it's true) Napoleone and Ficarra in saying they lied in court. If sued for libel here, she would have to prove the truth of her accusations on a balance of probability, a risky, expensive and substantial task.

ETA and at location 4141 she lets Stefanoni have both barrels too. Dynamite.

ETA (again) And Nara claimed she heard a boy saying, at 11 a.m. on 02 Nov, a body had been discovered. This one probably is in the wiki (apologies Dan). It proves everything in Nara's world is two hours out! She's like the car park clock. Therefore the murder happened between 9 and 9.30 p.m. Like we always said!

 

[Grinder]

Here is Candace's report on Kokomani. Either he is nuts, or he is crazy like a fox. Note the photo credits at the end.

Remember Hekuran Kokomani, the Albanian super witness in the Meredith Kercher murder case? He’s the only person ever to claim he saw suspects Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede together. He insists University of Washington honor student Knox waved a kitchen knife at him and that he threw black olives at her and Sollecito, her Italian boyfriend, before having a chat with their supposed co-conspirator about knives and birthday cakes.

...Gioffredi, and according to which he allegedly also saw Rudy accompanied by Raffaele, as well as by Amanda and by Meredith.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Gioffredi?

...Gioffredi, and according to which he allegedly also saw Rudy accompanied by Raffaele, as well as by Amanda and by Meredith.

BAHAHAHAHA
Thanks, I needed some amusement today.

 

[Bill Williams]

This kind of hurts my sensibilities. Mens rea and motive are two entirely different things. You prove mens rea in our case by pointing to the wounds to her throat and saying, 'Look! Who could do this without intending to kill or cause serious harm?' Motive is why you commit the crime. Massei is not discussing mens rea when talking about motive.

What I meant was in fulfilling the requirement (where he talks about it in his report in narrative form) to show that Amanda and Raffaele intended to commit murder (but not premeditated--spontaneous) and needed to be punished he supports it with what sounds like a motive (to fulfill lust inspired by hash and comics) but that isn't what he's doing. I may well have forgot a qualifier when making the comparison with mens rea as it's not the same hurdle, just what he's doing there is closer to it than what we would think of a motive, in court or out.

Thanks for this discussion.

In Canada our courts seem to default to the mythical "reasonable person". A mens rea is there if in the act of stabbing, a "reasonable person" would understand that this sort of action was liable to case harm... and if it led to death (even if death was 'unintended' in the act) then it would be murder. It's a matter of degree here, and the degree effects the minimum period of parole towards a life sentence.

All this is different than motive, which Judge Massei says belongs solely to Guede. Massei says that he, then, finds the mens rea in (wrongly) assuming that Knox and Sollecito got caught up in a momentary choice for evil. It's not even that Sollecito once read a comic book, or that a joint somehow dulled the moral senses.... that part of it (if it was not so tragic resulting in the death of an innocent) would be comical.

Like so much in this case it beggers belief. Massei already has them as normal students, with no psychopathology at all, and with no preexisting bad relationship with Meredith and no preexisting relationship at all with Guede, their supposed partner in this crime. Some folk have Guede as Knox's pimp (!), some folk have all this as part of a Masonic ritualistic killing..... Massei listened to the British friends and Filomena's testimony and came up with a huge zero in the, "Meredith and Amanda's relationship was strained" department.

John Follain closes his own book about the British friends as if they have anything meaningfully-forensic to say. Mignini thought enough of this testimony to put them on the stand, as if toilet cleaning habits were the Rosetta Stone to understanding this case.

Put all this together - and so far this is just putting together what Judge Massei said - and he's the only one who counts right now - and what do you have?

Even Judge Massei completely trashes Mignini's/Comodi's case... although Comodi's case centred more around the DNA forensics. So maybe this was Judge Massei's way of trashing Mignini's case, without himself being charged with calunnia by Mignini.

 

[GWCarver]

For those who have a porous memory like myself, Amanda will be on CNN tonight at 10 Eastern for an hour and a half. It will be repeated a couple of times through the night.

 

[Kaosium]

Thanks for this discussion.

In Canada our courts seem to default to the mythical "reasonable person". A mens rea is there if in the act of stabbing, a "reasonable person" would understand that this sort of action was liable to case harm... and if it led to death (even if death was 'unintended' in the act) then it would be murder. It's a matter of degree here, and the degree effects the minimum period of parole towards a life sentence.

All this is different than motive, which Judge Massei says belongs solely to Guede. Massei says that he, then, finds the mens rea in (wrongly) assuming that Knox and Sollecito got caught up in a momentary choice for evil. It's not even that Sollecito once read a comic book, or that a joint somehow dulled the moral senses.... that part of it (if it was not so tragic resulting in the death of an innocent) would be comical.

Like so much in this case it beggers belief. Massei already has them as normal students, with no psychopathology at all, and with no preexisting bad relationship with Meredith and no preexisting relationship at all with Guede, their supposed partner in this crime. Some folk have Guede as Knox's pimp (!), some folk have all this as part of a Masonic ritualistic killing..... Massei listened to the British friends and Filomena's testimony and came up with a huge zero in the, "Meredith and Amanda's relationship was strained" department.

John Follain closes his own book about the British friends as if they have anything meaningfully-forensic to say. Mignini thought enough of this testimony to put them on the stand, as if toilet cleaning habits were the Rosetta Stone to understanding this case.

Put all this together - and so far this is just putting together what Judge Massei said - and he's the only one who counts right now - and what do you have?

Even Judge Massei completely trashes Mignini's/Comodi's case... although Comodi's case centred more around the DNA forensics. So maybe this was Judge Massei's way of trashing Mignini's case, without himself being charged with calunnia by Mignini.

This is kind of funny, as I recall LJ ran into this same argument because its technically correct in regards to mens rea elsewhere and I should have remembered that, there was much crowing to be had from SA (cross forum) in particular. Lemme try again from a different angle, what you're calling a motive isn't a motive in the Italian System, no motive was ever approved regarding either Amanda Knox or Rudy Guede. What Massei decided was that Rudy was the instigator, he was the impetus of the attack and Amanda and Raffaele (theoretically) then joined in, 'choosing evil,' perhaps influenced by the hash and comics.

I'm not trying to be a semantic prick, I'm trying to forewarn you of rebuttals you might receive. The essence of your claim is correct, no one bought into the nonsensical motivations (lets use that word! ) proposed by Mignini in the beginning regarding the Masonic ritual killing. The 'sex game gone wrong' did not survive Massei either, he just utilized elements of what Mignini submitted to the Supreme Court to support his narrative of Amanda and Raffaele's 'role' in the death.


However if you say Massei found Rudy's motive as factual, someone like Machiavelli may well challenge on it you and they'd technically be correct, in more than one way and the reason I bring it up is not to be a jerk but that understanding this concept is helpful to divining what a future court can and cannot do, and what is actually considered factual and what is mutable. One way to figure it is that if Hellman changed it, then it can change again from what is in Massei, but if he relied on it to support something, probably not.

Thus the actual facts in Massei are the quotes from the testimony, the representations of the experts, the data in numbers etc, which one Massei chose is not, nor is whichever conclusion he drew from it, up to and including the verdict. What he found as a motivation in this case, that Rudy instigated the assault, is essentially meaningless at this juncture, but what he relied on to have Raffaele and Amanda 'join in'--the fact that Raffaele had a Manga comic book and they'd been smoking hash--is still there as a fact, even though it can be ignored completely and likely will be. The new trial may also introduce new facts, like C&V did and the whole parade of looney-tune testimony from the jailbirds which was meaningless to Hellmann's decision other than the additional info about Curatolo.

Most all the information to acquit Amanda and Raffaele was in Massei already, including most of the info on the DNA, he just had to establish if the prosecution information was (most) reliable. In almost all cases it wasn't, it was damned silly conjecture which is why it ran to 400+ pages. Think of the differing treatment of the luminol prints: Massei runs to page after page of the prosecution 'hypothesis' that the prints had been diluted perfectly (and uniformly!) between the thresholds of luminol and TMB (you can do this with virtually any such combination of tests) Hellmann just relies on Stefanoni's earlier testimony (before the TMB negatives were revealed) that a negative with TMB means it wasn't blood. Short and sweet--and correct.

 

[Bill Williams]

Kaosium - I'm really not following you - particularly the bit about how Machiavelli might chime in on this in relation to Rudy having the instigator role, in which Knox and Sollecito 'chose evil' because of comic books and marijuana.

So, you're going to have to be a far bigger prick, I guess. I don't get the semantic differences you are pointing out.

This is kind of funny, as I recall LJ ran into this same argument because its technically correct in regards to mens rea elsewhere and I should have remembered that, there was much crowing to be had from SA (cross forum) in particular.

"SA"?? As well as I don't know what "SA" is, what is the argument that LJ ran into? I agree with AngloLawyer - LJ never ever received permission to go AWOL. I think the stockade will be too good for him when he slinks back...

Lemme try again from a different angle, what you're calling a motive isn't a motive in the Italian System, no motive was ever approved regarding either Amanda Knox or Rudy Guede. What Massei found was that Rudy was the instigator, he was the impetus of the attack and Amanda and Raffaele (theoretically) then joined in, 'choosing evil,' perhaps influenced by the hash and comics.

I'm not trying to be a semantic prick, I'm trying to forewarn you of rebuttals you might receive. The essence of your claim is correct, no one bought into the nonsensical motivations (lets use that word! ) proposed by Mignini in the beginning regarding the Masonic ritual killing. The 'sex game gone wrong' did not survive Massei either, he just utilized elements of what Mignini submitted to the Supreme Court to support his narrative of Amanda and Raffaele's 'role' in the death.

Indeed, there has yet to be a fact finding court which has bought into Mignini - even the now quashed first appeal's hearing did not buy into it. I wonder that with neither Massei (the convicting judge) also not buying into any of it, how the remaining guilters expect a new Florentine prosecutor to in essence reverse Massei...

Barring some completely unexpected admission from Ms. Knox herself in this round of interviews (cf. CNN tonight) what "new evidence" is out there that would cause a new fact finding court to reverse Massei's finding of fact on no motive? And most certainly not Mignii's ever changing sex-game, satanic ritual gone wrong, or rent money, or toilet-tensions theory.... (But then I am still misunderstanding your nuance here....)

However if you say Massei found Rudy's motive as factual, someone like Machiavelli may well challenge on it you and they'd technically be correct, in more than one way and the reason I bring it up is not to be a jerk but that understanding this concept is helpful to divining what a future court can and cannot do, and what is actually considered factual and what is mutable. One way to figure it is that if Hellman changed it, then it can change again from what is in Massei, but if he relied on it to support something, probably not.

I hope it is not just a technicality, but Massei did not, did he?, have a right to rule if Rudy's motive was factual, only if Sollecito's and Knox's was. please correct me if I am wrong here, but Massei's assumption that Rudy had motive, is not in and of itself a finding of fact. This would be the same (in reverse) as if Rudy's fast track trial had ruled that there were multiple attackers and that those attackers were, in fact, Sollecito and Knox! Would it not?

Would not Massei's words about Guede be an "opinion" rather than a finding of fact? This is not just splitting hairs.... I think that is what you mean by below, "What (Massei) found as a motivation in this case, that Rudy instigated the assault, is essentially meaningless at this juncture....."

Thus the actual facts in Massei are the quotes from the testimony, the representations of the experts, the data in numbers etc, which one Massei chose is not, nor is whichever conclusion he drew from it, up to and including the verdict. What he found as a motivation in this case, that Rudy instigated the assault, is essentially meaningless at this juncture, but what he relied on to have Raffaele and Amanda 'join in'--the fact that Raffaele had a Manga comic book and they'd been smoking hash--is still there as a fact, even though it can be ignored completely and likely will be. The new trial may also introduce new facts, like C&V did and the whole parade of looney-tune testimony from the jailbirds which was meaningless to Hellmann's decision other than the additional info about Curatolo.

Most all the information to acquit Amanda and Raffaele was in Massei already, including most of the info on the DNA, he just had to establish if the prosecution information was (most) reliable. In almost all cases it wasn't, it was damned silly conjecture which is why it ran to 400+ pages. Think of the differing treatment of the luminol prints: Massei runs to page after page of the prosecution 'hypothesis' that the prints had been diluted perfectly (and uniformly!) between the thresholds of luminol and TMB (you can do this with virtually any such combination of tests) Hellmann just relies on Stefanoni's earlier testimony (before the TMB negatives were revealed) that a negative with TMB means it wasn't blood. Short and sweet--and correct.

Massei seems to simply assume that if a prosecution expert said it, then that was good enough for him. However, that assumption did not seem to extend to Mignini. Massei, whose motivations report is the one of record here now with the acquittals being quashed, disses Mignini on MAJOR prosecution issues.

Questions still to come:

1) will new Florentine prosecutors go all she-witch on us like Mignini did?
2) will they in essence completely ignore Sollecito? I mean, all Sollecito is, really, is the arrested alibi.... no Nike sole-print, no bathmat footprint, no uniquely-Raffaele Y-allele on the bra-clasp; and in looking at the video on how the clasp was collected 46 days later it is obvious that contamination HAD a source! (Sollecito is not just eye-candy for Knox, he's also eye-candy for the court. He's just along for Mignini's ride - until the prosecution can get him to cop a plea, which he will never do.)

(As an aside, did you read that Peter Quennell is now blaming the defence for the 46 day-delay in collecting the bra-clasp? Sometimes one simply cannot fall over laughing fast enough. I truly hope the Kerchers don't read Peter Quennell - he is not interested in the least in justice for their kin.)​

3) will the Florentine prosecutors re-call the British friends to testify that nuclear war was about to break out between Knox and Kercher over a pooh-stripe in the toilet?
4) will the Florentine prosecutors try to convince a Florentine judge/panel that "Knox's biological material" (cf. Massei) is now Knox's blood mixed in with Kercher's in 7 places in the cottage?
5) even so, what are the prosecutors going to do? Replay the avatar-cartoon showing a close-quarter melee, but with no wounds to Sollecito or Knox (like Rudy had) or ANY evidence of Knox being there to begin with?
6) Will Maresca simply put the autopsy film on a continuous loop and beg the Judge/Panel to make someone pay for this obvious atrocity, and it may as well be Knox and Sollecito?
7) will the new Florentine prosecutors make a big deal about Knox going on the interview circuit in the US to protest her innocence? What will these prosecutors do with her repetition of, "I did not kill I was not there?" Accuse her of continually changing her story?​

And what if all the Supreme Court wants out of the appeals court to begin with is to remove the "did not commit the act" and replace it with, "not proven, but acquit anyway so that we, the SC, can sign off on it"?

Regardless - Massei is in play right now, and if one has read Massei's motivations report, it is hardly the ringing endorsement of PM Mignini that is claimed.

If you do not believe me, read the report!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

SA = some alibi (a member here and elsewhere)

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium - I'm really not following you - particularly the bit about how Machiavelli might chime in on this in relation to Rudy having the instigator role, in which Knox and Sollecito 'chose evil' because of comic books and marijuana.

I mean if Machiavelli sees your argument that Massei chose Guede's motive he's likely to know its wrong and contest it, and will actually probably be right, but in essence you're still correct that Mignini's theory didn't get a whole lot of support, even in Massei's court as even he rejected Mignini's 'hypotheses.'

So, you're going to have to be a far bigger prick, I guess. I don't get the semantic differences you are pointing out.

Massei didn't chose Guede's motive, there was no motive in the case as in Italy that has to go through the SC and it was rejected--again because Mignini introduced a silly one: the comic book and hash one. That didn't meet the tests for proving premeditation, but since it was based on facts i.e. that Raffaele had a manga comic book with sexual violence in it and that they both admitted to smoking hash it could still be the reason (in the Motivations) they'd killed Meredith, but not a legal motive in Italy which requires better proof for a motive.

"SA"?? As well as I don't know what "SA" is, what is the argument that LJ ran into? I agree with AngloLawyer - LJ never ever received permission to go AWOL. I think the stockade will be too good for him when he slinks back...

SA is SomeAlibi down the bunnyhole. ~Two years ago there was a period where there was a lot of crosstalk between here and the bunnyhole, they wouldn't post here and they wouldn't allow innocentisti to post there--but each of us wanted to respond to each other's points--and they had decided to make LJ their 'special friend.' He was trying to explain this and SA, who is (or claims to be) a lawyer was having all sorts of fun as LJ had used the concept of mens rea to try to explain why what looks like a motive in Massei isn't actually a motive under Italian law, it's just to show a narrative with support in which they've been naughty (or reckless etc) and are deserving of punishment, it isn't actually (technically) a motive under Italian law--even though it looks like one when he writes it.

Indeed, there has yet to be a fact finding court which has bought into Mignini - even the now quashed first appeal's hearing did not buy into it. I wonder that with neither Massei (the convicting judge) also not buying into any of it, how the remaining guilters expect a new Florentine prosecutor to in essence reverse Massei...

I wonder how unusual it is that Matteini, Massei and Hellmann all rejected his theory of the crime in their courts--despite the fact he did change it. It's probably not common but the degree of rarity might be interesting to find out about.

I'm am most definitely hoping the new Florentine judges reverse a lot of Massei's conclusions, thus the chance it might happen the other way on this (relatively) minor issue is not impossible. The verdict is far more important than what he writes for the motivations on what caused Raffaele and Amanda to be involved, and in once sense the sillier the better as it will make the decision look loonier and might cause some real outrage that would work to Amanda and Raffaele's benefit.

Barring some completely unexpected admission from Ms. Knox herself in this round of interviews (cf. CNN tonight) what "new evidence" is out there that would cause a new fact finding court to reverse Massei's finding of fact on no motive?

It wasn't Massei who determined there was no motive, it was the Supreme court rejecting Mignini's which led to that. This is part of the process of trying to prove premeditation and give them a stiffer sentence and would have taken place in '08 or '09. Having been denied I (don't think) Mignini could even get another potential motive past them.

What you're talking about is not a motive, but Massei's narrative and support therof of their role in Meredith's death, and just like we all might have different scenarios for that, their system realizes that absent omniscience or a clean video recording there's 'different truths' as Hellmann put it, thus what gets put in the motivations is probably not an exact representation of reality, but the best sophistry p) scenario they could summon with the evidence they had. The jury might convict on dubious evidence, especially in a trial of the first instance, but the safeguard for that is the requirement to write an extensive motivations document detailing as much relevant evidence they have and try to piece it all together. The sillier (and anemically supported) it comes out, the better indication that they didn't have the evidence to actually support their verdict beyond a reasonable person's doubt.

And most certainly not Mignii's ever changing sex-game, satanic ritual gone wrong, or rent money, or toilet-tensions theory.... (But then I am still misunderstanding your nuance here....)

That could happen, but I doubt it would. Like I implied above, what would be better: if the new court decides there's not the evidence to support them actually taking part in the act of killing Meredith but standing by cheering on (or not preventing) Rudy from doing the killing like Mignini suggested he could do in the CNN interview, or that court deciding that Amanda's was a rogue Masonic infiltrator in a Jesuit organization which had been fighting a millennial-old silent struggle and was detailed to execute a British girl in ritualistic fashion to 'send a message' to the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Windsor family which they will blame on the RCC in order to start a viscous secret war inside whichever masonic sect that...I lost myself here! At any rate I'm thinking that might raise a few eyebrows and might actually be better for Amanda and Raffaele in the long run!

p)

I hope it is not just a technicality, but Massei did not, did he?, have a right to rule if Rudy's motive was factual, only if Sollecito's and Knox's was. please correct me if I am wrong here, but Massei's assumption that Rudy had motive, is not in and of itself a finding of fact. This would be the same (in reverse) as if Rudy's fast track trial had ruled that there were multiple attackers and that those attackers were, in fact, Sollecito and Knox! Would it not?

Rudy wasn't on trial in Massei's court, just as Amanda and Raffaele weren't on trial in the Michaeli court. Whatever was decided about the ones on trial was what was important, having it all fit together perfectly in synchronization is not mandatory. By those rules had the Michaeli court determined Rudy was the sole attacker it would have exonerated Amanda and Raffaele without a trial. How could they do that? I think there Mignini (and Maresca) were just making as much 'guilt' news as they could in the press at the time.

Would not Massei's words about Guede be an "opinion" rather than a finding of fact? This is not just splitting hairs.... I think that is what you mean by below, "What (Massei) found as a motivation in this case, that Rudy instigated the assault, is essentially meaningless at this juncture....."

Yep, that's it. I doubt it will get so that Amanda and Raffaele are more involved, (you see the evidence to support it doesn't exist or withers completely under a cursory examination and that does matter--especially in the appeal trial) but it's possible.

Massei seems to simply assume that if a prosecution expert said it, then that was good enough for him. However, that assumption did not seem to extend to Mignini. Massei, whose motivations report is the one of record here now with the acquittals being quashed, disses Mignini on MAJOR prosecution issues.

Yeah, he does. However the role Amanda and Raffaele played in relation to Rudy is not one that's immutable. After all in Hellmann's court they weren't there at all, not anything like Massei's motivations, was it?

Questions still to come:

1) will new Florentine prosecutors go all she-witch on us like Mignini did?
2) will they in essence completely ignore Sollecito? I mean, all Sollecito is, really, is the arrested alibi.... no Nike sole-print, no bathmat footprint, no uniquely-Raffaele Y-allele on the bra-clasp; and in looking at the video on how the clasp was collected 46 days later it is obvious that contamination HAD a source! (Sollecito is not just eye-candy for Knox, he's also eye-candy for the court. He's just along for Mignini's ride - until the prosecution can get him to cop a plea, which he will never do.)​

I doubt we'll see more allusions to demoness Amanda or witchcraft, I'm guessing that was a local affectation. Did you read where Perugia leads Italy in number of exorcisms performed?

(As an aside, did you read that Peter Quennell is now blaming the defence for the 46 day-delay in collecting the bra-clasp? Sometimes one simply cannot fall over laughing fast enough. I truly hope the Kerchers don't read Peter Quennell - he is not interested in the least in justice for their kin.)​

???

What's the argument? Sometimes untwisting that kind of crap can be enlightening.

3) will the Florentine prosecutors re-call the British friends to testify that nuclear war was about to break out between Knox and Kercher over a pooh-stripe in the toilet?

Heh.

4) will the Florentine prosecutors try to convince a Florentine judge/panel that "Knox's biological material" (cf. Massei) is now Knox's blood mixed in with Kercher's in 7 places in the cottage?

No, I doubt it, that's a lie even Massei unraveled, forensic sophistry at its finest. Almost all of it amounts to Rudy dripping Meredith's blood in Amanda's house and using items and fixtures that Amanda would likely have her DNA on.

5) even so, what are the prosecutors going to do? Replay the avatar-cartoon showing a close-quarter melee, but with no wounds to Sollecito or Knox (like Rudy had) or ANY evidence of Knox being there to begin with?
6) Will Maresca simply put the autopsy film on a continuous loop and beg the Judge/Panel to make someone pay for this obvious atrocity, and it may as well be Knox and Sollecito?
7) will the new Florentine prosecutors make a big deal about Knox going on the interview circuit in the US to protest her innocence? What will these prosecutors do with her repetition of, "I did not kill I was not there?" Accuse her of continually changing her story?

And what if all the Supreme Court wants out of the appeals court to begin with is to remove the "did not commit the act" and replace it with, "not proven, but acquit anyway so that we, the SC, can sign off on it"?

Regardless - Massei is in play right now, and if one has read Massei's motivations report, it is hardly the ringing endorsement of PM Mignini that is claimed.

If you do not believe me, read the report!

I know, I did.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Knox is on CNN in a 90 minute interview.

Italy's justice system sucks. Not that we don't have our own problems in the US but theirs sucks big time. They told her she had HIV when she didn't, asked her to disclose everyone she had sex with then leaked the list to the media.

At least she's getting good money for the book.

 

[yimyammer]

If you can find better material, please add it to the wiki.

Where can I find this Wiki?

 

[Kaosium]

Knox is on CNN in a 90 minute interview.

Italy's justice system sucks. Not that we don't have our own problems in the US but theirs sucks big time. They told her she had HIV when she didn't, asked her to disclose everyone she had sex with then leaked the list to the media.

At least she's getting good money for the book.

If there were enough incorruptible people, money wasn't really an issue and timeliness didn't matter the Italian System would work just fine and has some advantages over ours, one being the automatic trial de novo, an automatic re-trial allowing for more than just technicalities to provide relief.

However we live in the real world so what they get are corruptible men in a system so unwieldy they cannot properly fund it so it must lean heavy on taking police at their word and which takes forever.

 

[GWCarver]

Knox is on CNN in a 90 minute interview.

Italy's justice system sucks. Not that we don't have our own problems in the US but theirs sucks big time. They told her she had HIV when she didn't, asked her to disclose everyone she had sex with then leaked the list to the media.

At least she's getting good money for the book.

Cuomo showed an astonishing lack of interest in who actually killed Meredith Kercher. He may be the worst interviewer I have ever seen on a major network.

The Knox family has spent 2.1 million dollars defending and supporting Amanda so far, with years to go.

 

[Mary_H]

If there were enough incorruptible people, money wasn't really an issue and timeliness didn't matter the Italian System would work just fine and has some advantages over ours, one being the automatic trial de novo, an automatic re-trial allowing for more than just technicalities to provide relief.

However we live in the real world so what they get are corruptible men in a system so unwieldy they cannot properly fund it so it must lean heavy on taking police at their word and which takes forever.

I think the automatic trial de novo is an invitation to corruption. When everybody knows there will be a second trial, the first trial happens basically for all the wrong reasons. It also contributes to the lengthiness of the process.

 

[Dan O.]

Where can I find this Wiki?

The wiki is a private source repository for case related materials. For technical reasons I cannot open this to the public but have sent private invitations to individuals who have shown an ability to collect and present factual data on the case.

 

[anglolawyer]

I think the automatic trial de novo is an invitation to corruption. When everybody knows there will be a second trial, the first trial happens basically for all the wrong reasons. It also contributes to the lengthiness of the process.

Also an invitation to incompetence. Does the prosecutor get to appeal a first instance acquittal or is it game, set and match at that point?